MR. MCCURRY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Vice
President is meeting today with three families to launch the new
television rating system which will herald a new era in television
for children and families. And the President and the Vice President
for a long time have worked on this. I think you're all familiar with
our efforts on the v-chip and the things that we've been doing on the
rating system itself. But the Vice President will be in a position to
show some clips of new educational programming, unveil some of the
first examples of the new rating system in place, and demonstrate
a v-chip that works with the new rating system.

All about to occur in the Roosevelt Room; pool press. And I'm
told that we will have the sound piped in here at 1:30 p.m -- if the
daily briefing is over at that point. (Laughter.) Added incentive.

Q Incentive -- which is better, McCurry or Gore? McCurry or
Gore? (Laughter.)

Q Do you have your v-chip?

MR. MCCURRY: On the v-chip? They probably -- they didn't have
the v-chip on that Cybil Shepherd movie we were just watching in there,
did they? We were just waiting until the baseball playoffs come on.

Q Is that what you guys do up there?

MR. MCCURRY: It was just playing in the background. You can
watch that and listen to Wolf on CNN simultaneously.

All right, continuing -- the Secretary of Commerce,
Mr. William Daley, will in a short while announce that 90 percent
of this nation's metropolitan area has reported increases in export
sales growth from 1993 to 1996, showing that free and open trade is
one more -- more evidence of the engine driving the strong economic
performance we've seen in hoping to bring economic life back to
metropolitan areas. He will talk more about that. And, obviously,
we're calling attention to that in connection with the efforts the
President is making to secure free trade negotiating authority from
the Congress, a subject the President will meet with several members
of Congress about tonight.

Q Who?

MR. MCCURRY: We don't know yet. We've got some invitations out;
we're kind of luring them in. We throw the bait out there and kind of
lure them in and see who's in.

Q Are they Democrats?

MR. MCCURRY: House Democrats, yes.

Q Undecided House Democrats?

MR. MCCURRY: Some leaners, some undecideds, maybe some leaning
against -- a mix, a healthy mix.

Q How many?

MR. MCCURRY: Half dozen or so.

Q Is the administration worried about mixing it up with France
and the EU over this TOTAL oil deal in Iran?

MR. MCCURRY: No --

Q They've had several disagreements with the EU.

MR. MCCURRY: We amicably disagree with both the government of
France and at times the European Union on the best way to achieve the
change of behavior in Iran that we've wanted to see. We've never
disputed their right to have a so-called critical dialogue with Iran,
but we've often pointed out it has not yielded much result. It has
maybe yielded some economic benefit for portions of Europe; it has not
yielded any change in behavior in a regime that continues to sponsor
terrorism and is responsible for specific efforts to acquire weapons
of mass destruction against the will of the international community.

Q Will the U.S. have to impose sanctions on TOTAL or other
entities?

MR. MCCURRY: We'll have to look at the -- as I said yesterday,
look very carefully at the terms of the contract, understand it better
and apply the relevant U.S. export law.

Q Can you tell us definitively what the President's view is on
this issue of apologizing for slavery or for Jim Crow laws? Does he
have any inclination to do that?

MR. MCCURRY: He has not -- he was making a point to several of
us earlier today -- not in any of his discussion with community leaders
has this subject emerged as something of urgent concern. It is not of
urgent concern to the President. And I know of no plans at the moment
to make that the centerpiece of any of the work we're doing on this
race initiative.

We are looking forward to ways in which we can lift up people who
have faced barriers of discrimination, find examples of how we can make
Americans more excited about the idea of working together to overcome
the prejudices of the past that do linger. And that's the focus of
this work. The question is, frankly, a moot point, because it hasn't
been part of the active dialogue that we've had with the community or
with folks who are interested in the type of dialogue the President
has suggested.

Q If it's a moot point, Mike, why do you say we have no plans
to make it a centerpiece, which gives you some wiggle room? Why don't
you just say --

MR. MCCURRY: We're just not dealing with it. Did it come up
today?

Q But he's not going to apologize?

MR. MCCURRY: I have heard absolutely nothing that would indicate
that that's part of the planning of this.

Q A couple of the commission members have discussed it
when asked.

MR. MCCURRY: They've discussed it in a very oblique way,
and usually when prompted by questions from all of you. It's
just not been a subject that they're keen on, and certainly not
something that is a focus of the President's work on the subject.

Q Speaker Gingrich just criticized the President's remarks on
the IRS, suggesting that --

MR. MCCURRY: Is that what he was talking about?

Q Yes.

MR. MCCURRY: Oh, he was going on about error rates and
harassment, subjects that he is very proficient in himself.
(Laughter.) I thought I would just listen to a little bit of
that. It was very entertaining.

Q But if there is a bipartisan or nonpartisan commission
advisory panel to oversee the IRS, just as there are these kinds
of advisory panels that oversee the intelligence community and
other aspects --

MR. MCCURRY: We've got one already. The President established
the IRS Modernization Management Board that's in place, is helping to
turn the IRS in the right direction, as the Secretary has reported.
The President also signed into law the Taxpayer Bill of Rights last
year to protect the rights of taxpayers. It makes it easier for
taxpayers to recover attorney's fees when they've been the subject
of any improper action from the IRS. It gives taxpayers a longer
grace period to make tax payments.

We've got, I think, a top-notch private sector manager,
Mr. Rossotti, who has been nominated by the President to be the next
commissioner of the IRS. Secretary Rubin has been working with members
of Congress from the tax committees on IRS improvements. There's been
good consultation on the Hill that -- look, this is about serious work
of reforming government and reforming an agency that has had problems,
as the President said today, and has, I think, lost a little bit of
the trust that the American people need to have in the principal tax
collection agency of government. And the President, as he said earlier
today, would suggest that we need to get on with the serious business
of doing the work of improving that agency. He's got the Vice
President detailed, working as part of the performance review to
improve that agency. This is the hard work of improving a government
agency; it's not about the theater of sending letters and reading them.

Now, on the other hand, since I think the Speaker, last time
I checked, is probably one institution in American political life
less popular than the IRS -- (laughter) -- the more he wants to get
up and talk, I guess the better off we are. So I would encourage him
to continue to be out there and be the front man for the Republican
Party on this issue as much as he wants to. But I think sooner or
later you have to get back to the serious work we've been doing to
fix the agency.

Q The Speaker is talking about moving forward with an IRS reform
bill before the end of the session.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we've had good -- Secretary Rubin has been
on the Hill and has been working that issue, so that's good.

Q Are you going to be working with this bill?

MR. MCCURRY: We've been consulting with Congress on an IRS
improvement bill; that work's already going on. Going on -- we
need to get serious about it.

Q On the substance of this proposal, Gene Sperling said yesterday
there would be all of these conflicts of interest. Apparently, these
outside commissioners would be subject to the same conflict of interest
regulations that any other commissioners would be, and they would be
appointed at the pleasure of the President; he could get rid of them
if he didn't like them. What specifically do you think --

MR. MCCURRY: We've put forward very good ideas for IRS
improvement and IRS reform. What we need to do is get out of the
theater of the absurd and into the legislative chamber and write
a serious bill and get on with it.

Q But could you just describe your specific criticisms of the --

MR. MCCURRY: Yes. It would allow -- raise the possibility
you have people who have significant interest in the outcome of tax
regulatory matters being in the position of overseeing the work of
the IRS, which is a prima facie opportunity for conflict. So if you
can clear that matter up -- and there's probably no doubt ways to
do that -- there might be a way to get around it.

Q -- part-time, right?

MR. MCCURRY: We'll come back.

Q What is it about the INS report that the President doesn't
like? He doesn't want the breakup, is that right?

MR. MCCURRY: I think he's principally concerned on that report
with the proposal that they dismember the INS. It's not clear exactly
how you would take the enormously important task of having safe, legal,
orderly immigration efficiently administered, and then have that
dispersed -- have those tasks dispersed around government. So we'll
have to look at that more carefully as the President's statement says.

Q Why would they recommend such a thing?

MR. MCCURRY: I recall that some of the recommendations of the
commission leaked out some time ago, and the rationale was that it's
currently other agencies have got pieces of that jurisdiction, and
they saw that there were ways that you could maybe reorder the
administration of immigration law. But we would want to think long
and hard about that.

Q If your main objection to the Cardin-Portman proposal is
conflicts of interest, what body could be appointed where members
wouldn't have any potential dealings with the IRS? I mean, who
out there could not potentially --

MR. MCCURRY: Everyone has -- you pay taxes, I pay taxes,
we all pay taxes, so everyone has some potential for that type
of conflict. I think the concern raised about the draft
legislation was you would conceivably have people in large
economic enterprises that have got mammoth tax interests
pending before the government that might be in
that position.

Q And how is your alternative superior in terms of --

MR. MCCURRY: You can go to Treasury and they will tell you
more about how exactly the modernization board is run and who are
the people who are selected to be a part of that process. But there
are people who have been part of the policy-making process and
proficient and familiar.

Look, my point is this is not what this is about. You know it
and I know it. It's not about sitting down and trying to find an
orderly, rational way to improve the agency. This is about a political
issue and some gamesmanship that we're seeing back and forth which
we're happy to play, as I think I just ably demonstrated. But at
some point we've got to get serious if we're going to try to fix an
agency that needs some fixing and get on with it.

Q You want to continue? I've got a new subject.

MR. MCCURRY: Go on. I've done my bit on that.

Q Has the President decided whether to let HHS penalize those
states which do not come up with a welfare plan by tomorrow?

MR. MCCURRY: My understanding is there will be a long data
collection period, because the reports come in and probably data
from most of these states won't be assembled until November sometime.
Correct? So the HHS has some time before they make any determinations
about states that have not met the specific threshold tests in law,
and there will be an adjudication process back and forth between the
state welfare agencies and HHS before they get to that point. So
states will have a reasonable opportunity to come and make a case
about whatever their program is, how they're complying with terms of
the act, what their own individual implementation plans call for and
we'll be in a position to evaluate I think in a careful, disciplined
way what each state's requirements will be.

Q Will he, then, do anything to mark the day tomorrow and talk
about welfare?

MR. MCCURRY: Not that I'm aware of. We've got a new fiscal
year beginning and I think the main thing we'll do is be signing
something that will allow the funding for the government to continue
and, oh, what a fortune it is to be in that position as opposed to be
facing some kind of shutdown.

Q Mike, do you have any details about this town meeting he says
he's going to do on December 2?

MR. MCCURRY: Not yet. We know only that we will have a series
of these town halls in various places around the country. This one,
I think, is going to be in the Midwest, but we've not chosen the venue
for it. We've got a couple of different ideas as to format, as to
sponsorship and as to how we can use it to create the type of dialogue
the President foresees that we'll be announcing more details on that
at a future point.

Q Mike, do you have a view and will the White House get
involved in this extradition dispute with Israel over this alleged
murder suspect from Maryland?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm told to be very circumspect on what we say
about any pending extradition matter. The best thing for me to do
is to refer you to the Justice Department -- and the State Department
as to the question of what government-to-government contact we may
or may not have already had.

Q Do you think we should get him back?

Q Well, why can't we get a definitive answer? Why do you have
to be circumspect about what the United States is going to do?

MR. MCCURRY: Because extradition matters are covered by law
and there are legal proceedings, and as you know, we don't normally
comment on ongoing actions.

Q Is it being considered?

MR. MCCURRY: I refer you to Justice and State and they'll be
able to help you.

Q Mike, getting back to the Race Advisory Board, a lot of people,
including some White House staffers, are saying that the momentum as
far as the dialogue has dropped, especially since it has not been
targeted to white America -- one sole issue to be targeted to white
America. Could this President's town hall meeting be placed in a
predominantly white area where the President can talk to them --

MR. MCCURRY: Look, we've had the same exchange when the
President spoke down in Little Rock. We don't target messages to
white America. We don't think in that paradigm, as the President
suggested today. We need to think of ourselves as one America and
recognize that our diversity is a source of strength, and that the
things that we say to audiences of white Americans ought to resonate
and be familiar in minority communities, and vice versa.

Will the President be speaking on these issues in front of
audiences that are predominantly white? Of course, yes. Will the
town hall be an opportunity to bring together people that represent
diversity, to have an exchange of views? Of course, yes. But the
notion of targeting messages to particular communities is not what
this initiative is about. This initiative is about recognizing the
things that unite Americans and bring us together.

Q Well, Mike, many are saying that you are singing -- the White
House is singing to the choir.

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't heard many say that. I've heard you say
that, but I haven't heard many say it.

Q Why didn't he bring something more specific to say today at
the event? It looked like everybody just kind of got together as
if -- just sitting around the table saying, oh, what do we talk about.

MR. MCCURRY: He had some specific things about -- in one
particular area about fair housing, which is an aspect of the
initiative itself, how we can improve the tool of government and
apply it to cases in which we know there is discrimination. That's
in the providing of lending and in the administration of housing
programs around the country. He had some very specific announcements
about that.

But, remember, this is about a change of attitude and a change
of heart, as the President said in Little Rock, as much as a change of
policy. So the fact that the discussion has gotten the flavor of a
dialogue and less policy speech or a state of the union should not be
a surprise.

Q To follow up on what April was saying, the tone has been
pretty non-confrontational, and the question -- does the White House
worry that it is singing to the choir?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, I think if it's non-confrontational in the
sense that people are finding some common ground in this dialogue and
some areas of agreement, that's not a bad thing. And I think in
finding and defining that common ground, you, in a way, are isolating
those who are extreme in their views on race in America and who don't
represent the way most Americans approach the question.

Q But, Mike, the only common ground that they've seemed to find
is that it's a good thing to get dialogue going. I mean, mostly it
was talking about talking.

MR. MCCURRY: That's not a bad thing in and of itself, I don't
think.

Q With Dr. Franklin welcoming the HUD initiative today, do you
see this as a signal for things to come -- to bill it as some sort of
comprehensive economic strategy to narrow things like the income gap
that was mentioned yesterday, and other things of that nature? Are
we going to see a lot of that coming --

MR. MCCURRY: As you heard us when we unveiled the initiative in
San Diego, there will be specific policy elements of this initiative
as we go on through the course of the year that will bring -- come into
play or come into focus as we continue this work. So, yes, there will
be additional policy elements of this as we go along, and I think one
thing that -- one possible outcome of this process is a more
comprehensive structure is some of the things we do to address
questions of race and inequality, sure.

Q Mike, the HUD announcement today -- did that have anything
to do with the Race Advisory Board?

MR. MCCURRY: It was Secretary Cuomo's thinking who kind of
brought this to the attention of the White House that this is something
that fits well within the parameters of what the President defined when
he unveiled the initiative itself, which is find ways in which we use
the tool of government along with the dialogue we are seeking to
address questions related to discrimination.

Q That would have happened irregardless of this Race Advisory
Board?

MR. MCCURRY: The work of government is going to continue and
aspects of the work of government that relates to discrimination,
breaking down barriers will continue and will, from time to time,
intersect with the work of this advisory board, sure.

Q Mike, any particular reason why the President is choosing
possibly the Midwest as the first site, and what is the rationale
behind sort of regional selection of town halls?

MR. MCCURRY: I was not part of that discussion, so I'll have
to check on that for you.

Q Just to finish up the question on HUD. Is the $15 million
new money, or is that somehow at Cuomo's discretion to allot this,
or is this all in the budget agreement?

MR. MCCURRY: It's part of HUD's appropriation under the HUD
Interior bill, but these are the awarding of the grants. It's
previously appropriated money.

Q Are these every year, these grants?

MR. MCCURRY: I'll check and see. Secretary Cuomo is, I think,
having a press conference shortly on that, so you may want to check
with him; some of that may come up.

Q What is the President's reaction to some members of the
Veterans Affairs Committee who want to form a panel to investigate
the way VA handles sexual harassment complaints? Is the VA too
lenient, and is the panel necessary?

MR. MCCURRY: I doubt that the President knows anything about
it, but I'm sure that he would encourage the department to deal with
questions of harassment or complaints that arise just as we did
recently in dealing with similar issues with respect to the Pentagon.

Q Confirmation hearings for Mr. Gober have apparently been put
on hold. Does he still have the President's confidence?

MR. MCCURRY: I didn't know they were placed on hold, but of
course he does, and he would be an excellent nominee and he has very
strong support in the veterans community, among other places where
he has earned support.

Q Does the President have an attitude on Promise Keepers?

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't heard him say anything about it, no.

Q When the President was commenting on the IRS, he mentioned
a staff-level review to compare IRS abuses before and after the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

MR. MCCURRY: That was to become more familiar with some of
the stories that were presented dramatically during the hearings.
The President had -- the first and obvious question is, did anything
we did with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights address any of the concerns
that were reflected in some of those individual stories that were
presented. As the President suspected, we may have addressed some
of those problems in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that was signed
last year, but --

Q When he says "staff," is he talking about --

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, Sperling, and others.

Q On the Promise Keepers, Mike, any chance the President will
stop by that rally?

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't heard of any plans for that, no.

Q Mike, what's the status of this food safety announcement?
Is that going to be Thursday, Friday --

MR. MCCURRY: We haven't said yet, but it was some time
between Wednesday and Friday that it was looking likely.

MR. LOCKHART: Yes, it may slide a little bit.

MR. MCCURRY: Toward the end of the week.

Q Do you have any more guidance on the tobacco meeting tomorrow
and what it's going to be about or who's coming?

MR. MCCURRY: No, it's more of an organizational effort.
It's going to be a daunting task to deal with legislation that
complex. I think there are something like five or six committees
in the Senate and at least four in the House that are with some
claim of jurisdiction for elements of the proposed settlement,
and the President wanted to take the opportunity to meet with
the leadership and with the committee heads that will be involved
to get a better sense of what the timing will be and to certainly
continue the momentum that exists for building on the work done
by the parties and the attorneys general, and he'll take that
opportunity tomorrow.

Q The leadership will be here tomorrow?

MR. MCCURRY: We've invited them and I think invited them if
they can't attend to send representatives or designees, and we'll
have to let you know tomorrow who is actually in a position to attend.

Q Mike, tomorrow the House Judiciary Committee is going to be
taking up the issue of medical marijuana. Could you kind of refresh
us on the administration's stands on the legality of that and --

MR. MCCURRY: I don't have anything prepared on that, but
General McCaffrey has testified on that in the past and I believe
he's testifying tomorrow if I'm not mistaken, so I'll direct you
over to his office; they've got good prior testimony that can help
you on that.

Q Is tomorrow the weathermen coming in?

MR. MCCURRY: Those who report on climate matters --

Q That's what I meant to say. Sorry, my mistake. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: That's right. They're going to be out there
and some of them are actually be doing the weather from the lawn
out there. We're very excited about this event. They've got a
good -- do you want to know a little more?

Q Are they going to rate the possibility of greenhouse gases?

Q Yes, give us more.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, come on now, these are your colleagues.
Tread carefully here. Those guys get a lot better ratings on some
of their broadcasts than some of you in this room.

Q Ooooh!

MR. MCCURRY: Am I right? Anyone want to dispute that? It's
true. I'll tell you -- do you want to know a little bit about what
they're going to be doing tomorrow?

Q Yes.

MR. MCCURRY: They spend most of their time -- there are about
100 from around the country that are going to be here. They're going
to get -- most of their time is going to be over at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, talking with the experts and
scientists over there. We were more interested in getting them good,
hard, factual information before they got any kind of sales pitch
from us, although we will, of course, take the opportunity to -- the
President and the Vice President will take the opportunity to get
their points in as well.

Dr. Daniel Albritton, who is Director of NOAA's aeronomy
laboratory, will discuss the increased concentration of greenhouse
gases. And the predictions -- the state of science regarding
predictions about climatic effect of greenhouse gases and what we
know measurably and quantifiably what the consensus is from that
large intergovernmental group that has looked at the question --
Dr. Thomas Karl, Senior Scientist at NOAA's National Climate Data
Center, will discuss how climate patterns have changed over time
and present some of the data about precipitation and temperature
patterns that are changing weather here in the United States and
around the world. A subject that we know we'll be interested in.

There will be a presentation by Dr. Ansly Litma (phonetic),
Director of the Climate Prediction Center at NOAA on El Nino,
which has been much in the news recently and which many of these
folks have to report on, and Professor William Easterling from
Pennsylvania State University's Geography and Systems Science
Department will discuss the societal impacts of climate change,
some of the things about how it would affect life.

Q Are you hoping that you can get them to carry your argument
in preparation for --

MR. MCCURRY: No. This is not about carrying arguments. These
guys stand up and tell you when the fronts are coming and and things
like that. But if they get interested and engaged in the subject of
climate change, and can relate what they are telling their audiences
about weather patterns that they see to what the scientists say -- and
some of them I think are planning to do special reports about this
subject for their audiences -- it's a chance for them to kind of
showcase their reportorial abilities, too. So that's good.

Q But, Mike, why is it -- obviously, you hope that they go back
and that there are broadcasts on local and network TV about global
warming. Why is that so important to the White House?

MR. MCCURRY: So people understand better the changes that are
occurring that are sometimes imperceptible. You don't go out and say,
hey, the global climate is changing today. But you do interact with
the weather that you face and you see changes in weather patterns over
time. So we want these folks to get the best education we can make
available on the subject, hopefully report on it to their audience,
hopefully get the American people more engaged by the topic. And if
they kind of come back to the subject from time to time, that would
be a good thing.

Q They will hear these difference scientists --

MR. MCCURRY: When they're here they will meet with the
President, the Vice President, who will do their kind of pitch
on what we need to do to meet up to our international obligations
to begin searching for quantifiable, measurable reductions in the
greenhouse gases that are producing these climate effects. And
they'll hear a little bit more from us -- what we can tell them
that the NOAA folks can't is here's our negotiating strategy for
Kyoto such as we can share it publicly, and here's what we're doing
to address some of the things you've heard from the experts about.

Q What do they have to do to qualify for this?

MR. MCCURRY: Be on any ADI ratings. That's right. As long
as they've got an audience. These guys -- look, night after night,
they get more air time than most of the people in this room. I hate
to rub it in. (Laughter.) So, you know.

Q Are they going to go to the Heritage Foundation afterward
for another point of view? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: We hope they do. We hope they do. Because
there's not, among serious scientists and experts, not a lot of
disagreement. So we hope they search out contrary information
because it -- and test it. They should. Good journalists should
test their information in their search for truth, and in doing so,
they'll find out what a consensus there is on climate change.

Q They will be broadcasting from the lawn?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, some of them are going to be broadcasting
from out here.

Q Usually when he does an interview with some of our colleagues
we get a transcript. Will there be a transcript of his remarks?

MR. MCCURRY: Are we doing transcripts of remarks --

Q Do we get to cover the President addressing the weather people?

MR. MCCURRY: This doesn't say whether there is coverage of that.
Is that open for some kind of coverage? There's some kind of coverage.

Q Mike, how do you expect them to take the information they get
and use it on the air? I mean, the President has talked about all the
midwest floods as being an example of global warming. Do you expect
them to say, we've got huge rains coming and --

MR. MCCURRY: No, some -- our understanding from what I've heard
anecdotally, some are actually planning to -- some are going to do
their weather report from out here, but a lot of them are planning to
do separate stories about the issue of climate change that will feed
into their local news broadcasts.

Q I think it's pretty clear that we're just jealous about the
face time with the President.

MR. MCCURRY: You're jealous because they're going to get
a lot more air time on this issue than you've been able to so far.
(Laughter.) But now you should go back and say, every one of our
affiliates in the country are going to be having these guys that
do the weather out there talking about this thing and you can't
get me on for a minute, 30 on the network news? What's wrong with
you people? What's wrong with you people in New York? Don't you
listen to these guys? (Laughter.)

Q Have you been tapping our phone lines? (Laughter.)

Q What time are they coming here?

MR. MCCURRY: You know, tell them -- every single one of those
network executives that you deal with, they go out to -- where --
Montauk and places like that that are going to be under water in the
middle of the next century. (Laughter.) Try that on them.
(Laughter.)

Q No network executive will last until he middle of the next
century. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: Mr. Plante, that was Mr. Bill Plante of CBS.
(Laughter.) Bill Plante of CBS who made the good point that the --
(laughter) -- longevity of most of these network executives is about
like that of a White House staffer. (Laughter.) I.E. we're all temp
workers.

Q The former White House correspondent.

MR. MCCURRY: I could do the weather. I would enjoy doing the
weather. That's a good job. (Laughter.) I listen to the NOAA
weather. I got one of those little radios that tunes in. I like
that stuff.

Q That's because you know which way the wind blows. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: Ladies and gentlemen of the CSPAN audience, we're
killing time until the San Francisco Giants begin their game shortly.

Q What time do they come in?

MR. MCCURRY: What time? This is the third time Helen has --
what time are we doing this event tomorrow?

MR. TOIV: As of a couple days ago, 1:30 p.m.

MR. MCCURRY: As of a couple days ago, 1:30 p.m.

Q Any big-name weather people?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, the Today Show is going to be doing the
weather from out here. We're very excited about this.

What about your guy, Spice? What about Spiceland? What's the
deal?

Q Valerie Voss?

MR. MCCURRY: It's probably -- you know, Rick Kaplan wouldn't
let him come in because he was afraid that would show too close a
tie to the Clinton administration or something.

Q What about Marv Albert?

MR. MCCURRY: Boy, I'm just going to get in trouble over and
over -- the longer I'm out here, the more trouble -- Neikirk, haven't
you given up yet? What do you want? (Laughter.)

Q I'm just wondering how you explain Clinton's passionate
interest in weather change. Does he share something in common
with the --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, no this is -- remember, this is something
that goes back to commitments made by the United States at the time
the Rio Treaty was promulgated, goes back to work that started under
President Bush. And it really represents an obligation the United
States government has under international treaty now to address the
consequences of climate change. So it's not so much passion for the
subject of weather -- although don't we all pay close attention to
the weather -- it's more, this is something we're going to have to
get serious about and deal with now because the consequences of
waiting are going to be infinitely greater if we wait to the future.

Q A number of corporate executives and economists were up on the
Hill today warning that high restrictions on the output of greenhouse
gasses would have a very bad effect on the economy, in terms of job
losses and rising energy costs and so forth. When do you think the
United States will be announcing its negotiating position on the
percentage cut?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, given that -- I mean, first of all,
a large part of what -- I haven't studied that testimony, but
a large part of that may in fact be true, and you've heard from
our own -- the administration itself say that if you do this the
wrong way, the economic consequences could be devastating. The
cost that Americans would pay in increases for fuel would be
extraordinary if you don't get the science right and you don't
figure out what are the most efficient ways to get the reductions
in gas emissions that you want. So we are very carefully looking
at that.

Now, as to our negotiating posture, because it is an
international negotiation, I doubt that we are ever going to
come out and say, here's our negotiating posture, unless we do
that in fact as part of our negotiating strategy to begin to move
it. But it will be in the period as we work up to December in Kyoto.
And I think that there have been -- there is kind of a staggered
sequence of times in which the negotiators are going to be meeting
in plenary sessions prior to Kyoto. I haven't checked to see when
the next one is, but it comes up, I believe, sometime next month.

Q Who is going to head the delegation?

Q Is the President going?

MR. MCCURRY: At Kyoto, currently, the plan is for representation
to be at the sub-minister level, and the United States delegation, at
the moment, is structured to be led by Under Secretary of State Tim
Wirth -- correct? That's correct.

Q Is there any chance the President would go?

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't heard any suggestion that the President
would go, but, again, I think that's -- it will depend on what they
are actually moving towards and whether they are successful in
completing negotiations.

Q What about Vice President Gore?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't think I can speculate on something that's
in December. I have a hard enough time doing tomorrow and next week.

Q At the Press Club luncheon, Speaker Gingrich --

MR. MCCURRY: Is he done yet? He's probably still yacking.
Keep him out there. Keep him going. (Laughter.) The more the better.

Q At the beginning of his speech, he said that Republicans do
plan to forge ahead next year and call for a flat tax, a national sales
tax, the White House should be prepared for that --

MR. MCCURRY: That's good. So all those tax increases they
were --

Q Well, the question is, given the IRS hearings, do you think
public shift, perhaps, public mood might be shifting toward a
simplified tax --

MR. MCCURRY: I think that they will -- we'll need to test
that proposition, whether the people of the United States want to go
towards a new increase in tax on goods and services that they purchase
day in and day out, adding to the federal tax -- excise tax at the
cash register, or in some value-added form. Those who would advocate
a national consumption tax would need to make that argument. But I
think it is clear that it will have to be an argument in which we are
included in the discussion, because at the end of the day, the
President and the administration will have a lot to say about the
outcome of any change in tax law.

Q Do you think the tax law needs to be radically restructured?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we kind of did this yesterday. I think
that you need to know to what purpose are you proposing changes.
We have a lot of things in the tax code now, as I said yesterday,
that are designed to do things that most Americans want to have
happen in their lives. They want to be able to own a home, and
the home mortgage interest deduction helps make that more possible.
Most Americans -- or many Americans like to support charities and
their churches, and the charitable deductions helps make that more
practical -- or helps make -- at least create incentives to do that.
We just got done creating incentives that will help Americans get
some help when they get a college education or go back to get
additional skills and training so that they can earn more in the
changing workplace of the future. That's a good thing.

Now, did that make the tax code more complicated? Of course,
it did. We just expanded the IRA program, so that people can put
more money into long-term savings and get a tax preference for those
savings put aside so that they can pay for retirement, they can pay
now for education and other things. Those are good, positive changes
that have been made.

Now, the Speaker wants to clear all that off the board and
wipe all those things out and try, in some ways, a radical, new tax
proposal. He's going to have to make that case. We have not seen
broad public support for that. If you say, let's bash the IRS.
Oh, sure. That's my favorite. Let's do away with the IRS as we
know it. That's good. Those are slogans. And we've been doing
the hard work of changing that agency and trying to get it to perform
up to the expectations of our most important customers, the taxpayers.
And that's the work that we'll continue doing. And we'll let the
Speaker give all the speeches he wants to on C-SPAN. As I said,
the more he's out there, the better it is in the long run for us.

All right. On that happy note.

Q Mike, do you expect the President will sign the CR before
6:30 p.m.?

MR. MCCURRY: We don't know. I think, John, it's going to
depend on when it actually gets down here. Certainly before midnight.
And depending on how late it is, we may just do a paper release and
then a photo release or something. But we'll let you know as we go
through the afternoon on the time.